Republican opposition to Iraq plan grows (Warner, Collins, Coleman join w/Ben Nelson)

AP on Yahoo ^ | 1/22/07 | David Espo - ap

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON - Congressional Republicans pushed back Monday against President Bush's decision to deploy additional troops in Iraq, some voicing opposition while others called for the administration and Iraqi government to be held accountable.

In the Senate, three GOP lawmakers joined one Democrat in unveiling nonbinding legislation expressing disagreement with Bush's plan and urging him to "consider all options and alternatives" to the planned increase of 21,500 troops.

In the House, members of the leadership drafted a series of what they called "strategic benchmarks," and said the White House should submit monthly reports to Congress measuring progress toward meeting them.

The developments occurred on the eve of Bush's State of the Union address, and as Democrats pointed toward votes in the House and Senate in the next few weeks declaring that the troop increase was "not in the national interest of the United States."

Republicans have struggled to respond in the two weeks since Bush outlined his new strategy in a speech. Though aware that the war played a role in the GOP defeat in last fall's elections, most have been unwilling to abandon a president of their own party.

Both the Senate legislation and the action taken by the House Republican leaders were softer than the legislation that majority Democrats intend to place for a vote. But they also represented a more forceful response to the long and deadly war than the GOP offered while it held the majority in Congress.

Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, joined GOP Sens. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record) of Maine and Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record) of Minnesota in producing the legislation expressing disagreement with Bush's plan.

"I personally, speaking for myself, have great concern about the American G.I. being thrust into that situation, the origins of which sometimes go back over a thousand years," Warner said.

Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, the Senate's most conservative Democrat, joined the Republicans.

In the House, Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, the party's leader, said that he supports Bush's plan and that his backing is not conditional on the president agreeing to meet the standards that lawmakers laid out.

He said he had told the president "that the support is still strong among Republicans but there are a lot of our members who are skeptical that the plan will work" because of doubts that the Iraqi government will follow through on its commitments.

Boehner also released a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., urging her to appoint a special committee of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats to oversee the "implementation and progress of the president's new strategy for success in Iraq."

As the majority party, Democrats generally are entitled to more seats on House committees than Republicans, and it is unlikely Pelosi would agree to a different arrangement to monitor the war.

The House Republicans' suggested "strategic benchmarks" apply largely to the Iraqi government, which has pledged additional troops to quell sectarian fighting and to restrain Shiite militia.

Republicans want the government to be measured on its cooperation with U.S. forces, its ability to purge its security forces of insurgents and their sympathizers and also on its ability to assure that Shiite, Sunni, Kurd and other groups are treated equally.

___

Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty contributed to this article

[Txsleuth]

OMG!!!

That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard!!

George Allen where are you???

[onyx]

Free Republic Opinion Poll: How would you vote if it's Rudy vs Hillary in '08?

Composite Opinion
Rudy	67.0%		4,302
Third party	21.1%		1,356
Sit it out	4.9%		315
Hillary	3.8%		246
Undecided	3.2%		206
	100.0%		6,425
Member Opinion
Rudy	69.4%		1,932
Third party	20.6%		575
Sit it out	4.8%		134
Undecided	4.1%		115
Hillary	1.0%		29
	99.9%		2,785
Non-Member Opinion
Rudy	65.1%		2,370
Third party	21.5%		781
Hillary	6.0%		217
Sit it out	5.0%		181
Undecided	2.5%		91
	100.1%		3,640

[ More Opinion Polls · Return to Forum ]

[Just A Nobody]

Just called the scumbag...AGAIN!

He has made it abundantly clear he doesn't give a rat's arse what we think!!!

[TKDietz]

"Amazing that they are willing to sacrafice America's reputation and allow 3,000 GI's to have died in vain..."

I'll get flamed for this, but I'd say the blame goes to those who steamrolled this war through in the first place. We should have focused on Afghanistan and never ventured off into Iraq. It's been nothing but a monumental distraction, an unnecessary expensive disaster that has not made us one iota safer. It was bad for America, and it's been a nightmare for the Republican Party. If not for the decision to invade Iraq, and all the pushing done to get us there, the Republican Party would still control the House and the Senate. Saddam Hussein would still be a thorn in our side, like so many other dictators out there, but at least Iraq would be stable. As it is we could send twenty thousand troops, fifty thousand, it won't make a difference. Religious extremists that don't like America will end up running that country, if not through their lame government, then as powerful warlords who would have never gained footing with Saddam Hussein still in power. This war was stupid, stupid, stupid. It has hurt the republican Party and it has hurt the standing of this great nation throughout the world.

[photodawg]

Gutless bastards that care about their own asses more than their country. Our 'leaders'.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

This country will rue the day we quit on this little skirmish because we were unwilling to kill the enemy, and unwilling to take minuscule American casualties.
You can pay me now.....or you can pay me later. Later may even be too late!

[PISANO]

There isn't much time left [maybe 9 months] before the overwhelming weight of standing alone will MUTE George Bush's resolve. He will have no choice, the public will be with Congress's removal of FUNDING.

I would not have believed this possible just a few months ago but I now believe it is inevitable. We have been completely feminized, we are soft, weak and stupid.

The only real men left in this nation reside in the Military.

[DrDeb]

"You do realize that about %70 of the American public is against the war right now don't you? "


Actually, the MSM uses 'manufactured' polls to convince you that this stat is fact!

I encourage you to review new polling results from the most respected INDEPENDENT pollster in the business today:
THE BATTLEGROUND POLL 2007

Among other things, you will discover the following:

WAR IN IRAQ
46% war worth fighting
48% war not worth fighting
[. . . a even spit rather than a 70% majority against!]

53% of electorate coalesce around the President's stated goal of forces staying until the situation is confirmed stable (32%) or the President's plan for a troop surge to stabilize the situation quickly (21%) -- hardly looks like a repudiation of the President's approach to me?!

PRESIDENT BUSH
42% JA rating
45% Favorability rating
[FYI: For survey respondents, job approval and favorability ratings have become synonymous!]

61% LIKABILITY RATING
[FYI: The Battleground Poll remains the only poll that consistently tracks a president's 'likability rating'. All MSM pollsters produced likability ratings until their boy Clinton became president and couldn't get his LR above 40%!]

BattleGround Poll: Republican Strategic Analysis
By Ed Goeas

"Continuing a trend seen throughout his Presidency, the (President's) personal approval rating remains high at sixty-one (61%) of likely voters approving of him personally, a sign that the President has an opening to at some point move his image and JA rating net positive. On this measure 93% of Republicans and 56% of Independents approve of him. The President continues to have a considerable amount of personal good will not only with his base Republican voters, but also with those key Independent voters."


You will find more polling statistics and analysis at
http://www.tarrance.com/Republican-Analysis.pdf

[onyx]

Thank you as always!!!

[Steel Wolf]

I don't know that going into Iraq was stupid. The theory behind it is still sound, and it was the right thing to do. The problem is that, despite the mercifully low casualties, the war was horrifically mismanaged. Arrogance and incompetence snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

What could have been one of the more brilliant coups of American foreign policy instead turned into an anchor around the neck of the Republican party. While it's easy to blame the MSM for descending on the wreck like vultures, the sad reality is that we handed them the meal on a silver platter.

[Albert Barr]

I cannot believe I voted for that jerk! But I can't even remember what the alternative was. Anyway, keep calling! I've called a few times. I'm going to call Webb after his "rebuttal" BS too. Why do Virginians always have to give the rebuttal. What a crock! Makes us look like a bunch of d**kheads!

[TKDietz]

What would a victory have looked like? Would that mean they'd elect a pro-American government and all of them would love us and all the other nations in the Middle East would suddenly see the error of their ways and become secular democracies that support Israel and the United States? No doubt the war efforts could have been better managed. There are always problems like that in wars. But really, what would better management have gotten us? This thing was a disaster from the word go. If the main goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, we succeeded. We're done and we need to get the hell out. If the goal was to scare the bad guys into compliance, win hearts and minds and reshape the Middle East, forget it. We'd need a magic wand for that.

[Peach]

Thanks for posting that, Dr. Deb.

And I'd like to remind the cut and runners on this forum that the majority of British people thought that Neville Chamberlain was right about the thread posted by Hitler too.

[vigilence]

Consider yourself flamed. And guess where we'd have been fighting OBL and his ilk for the last five years...right here in the good old USA (see today's ABC "exclusive" re: sending in more "students" to have another shot at immortality). Like flies to honey, our presence in Iraq has kept them right where we want them. And this isn't just another "police action" that you can manage from Washington with all of the usual micro-managers. This is as big in every sense as the Cold War battle with Communism except this time it's Islamic Radicalism. You kid yourself if you think that not going into Iraq was the better choice...pay up now or leave it for the next President to clean up. And that is just what Bill Clinton did. Thank God this is a Republic and that our forefathers understood how easily the masses can be swayed in a pure democracy for the bold and responsible like Bush/Cheney should have the power to do what's best for the country, despite the poll numbers.

[TKDietz]

"Like flies to honey, our presence in Iraq has kept them right where we want them."

There's plenty of honey in Afghanistan. We could have swatted the same flies there.

[FreedomNeocon]

The only thing that pisses me off more than liberal weenie Republicans jumping ship, its these 'non-binding resolutions' that do nothing and that exactly why the weenies have no problem passing them.

They will do say and do anything, just as long as they can avoid all accountability, responsibility, and ownership.

Its just so gutless... but what pisses me off is that people don't seem to notice and even 'reward' the act. Just unreal.

[vigilence]

Sorry, Steel Wolf, I can't buy your explanation of events in Iraq. It sounds like it's right out of the AP or DNC talking points. The fact is that having learned the lesson of Viet Nam that more troops equals more targets we used our own brand of blitzkrieg with light, manueverable forces penetrating fast and far while leaving pockets of resistance behind for our re-inforcements to deal with. We knew America's aversion to casualties and were playing against ourselves after the first Gulf War when we set the bar so high by having very few casualties. The Marines did their jobs and took Baghdad in record time. Now is where we supposedly start to make mistakes...not enough troops to maintain order, fix the powerplants and electrical grid, etc. Well you know what? The military's job is to kill people and break things. Now, how were we supposed to know how the Iraqi's would react? They could say, "thank you, America for freeing us" or they could do what they did...listen to the sniping in Washington and wonder which side to choose...America? Al Quida? Suni militia? Shia malitia? If you are forced to choose are you going to side with someone who may or may not be there to help when the going gets rought? If they're listening to the MSM and Dims and watching the polls go toward abandoning them it's no wonder they are reluctant to step up on our side. The Dims and MSM did in Iraq what they did in Viet Nam, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Unfortunately, I'll get to choose between John Warner and Mark Warner, because for some reason John Warner has decided Virginia "needs him" for another 6 years.

These guys are all too old to properly think, much less correctly act.

[vigilence]

Who has been the biggest thorn in our sides since 1979? Who led the taking of our diplomats? None other than the President of Iran who now threatens the world with Islamofacist nuclear missles. Dude, this is geo-politics 101. If we stay singularly focused only in Afghanistan we're conrnered. But if we take out Saddam and are able to establish a non-sectarian or at least balanced government in Iraq we then have Iran surrounded. It's a global chess match. And Iran cannot use oil as a weapon against the developed countries,yes, including us. Besides, Afghanistan presents problems with Pakistan that, right now, are better left unaddressed.

[Reo]

"None of the wimpy Pubbies better call me for contributions! "

Over a week ago was Coleman quoted as being "embarassed" by the President's Irag surge decision. I e-mailed him that I was embarassed to be on both his donor and his Christmas card list, and requested immediate removal from both.

[colorado tanker]

Once I heard the Army say "surge" troops could be coming home by summer, I pretty well gave up on the "plan." It strikes me as too few troops for too little time. I hope I'm wrong.

But if I were up for re-election in 2008, I don't know how hard I'd fall in behind this.